Every Y-radius arm I've seen has the long part on the bottom, and the short part on the top. Like this:
Y-Link Radius Arms, does it matter which side is up? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Walking Eagle
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
- Thread starter
- #2
Is there any reason they can't be flipped like this?
- Thread starter
- #3
or even like this for the tubing bender impaired?
I was trying to think if there was some reason the torque of the axle would matter, but since they are built the same front and back, the front is putting the short part of the Y in tension and the rear is putting it in compression, so that can't be the reason. Is it due to the mounts that are already on axles being smaller on top than bottom? or ?????
I was trying to think if there was some reason the torque of the axle would matter, but since they are built the same front and back, the front is putting the short part of the Y in tension and the rear is putting it in compression, so that can't be the reason. Is it due to the mounts that are already on axles being smaller on top than bottom? or ?????
Im curious about this as well. I may be doing this instead of a 3 link...
Sent from my DROID2
Sent from my DROID2
i see no diff. is kinda nice to protect the joint by putting it on top-my radius arms are beat to hell (need to be replaced with a plated arm) and the joints on my truck would have been destroyed if the were to get smashed on the bottom of the arm repeatedly. would hang up on stuff too
4WheelUnderground
Suspension is EVERYTHING
It's the eye to eye angle that makes the difference. If it were shaped like an "S" it would still move the same as an "I".
- Thread starter
- #8
Why would it be any different one way or the other. I can't see where it would be.
The lower link is in compression. The upper link is in tension. By mounting the lower link to the upper link instead of vice versa, you are putting a significant stress in the middle of the upper link.
- Thread starter
- #10
well, except, as I said, when it's on the rear of the vehicle - the tension is replaced w/ compression. This same y-link style is used in the rear.
That and the long link, that you say is going to get bent, it doesn't take any more or less force to bend it if I'm pushing on it with the short link than if I'm pulling on it.
my links are beat to hell. all 4 of my links are 2" by 1/4" wall and all are bent to hell. if mine were flipped like that they would get caught on rocks all day long. front wouldn't be as bad as the rear but it would get caught. if it got caught at speed the dammage to the link would be magnified
why do you want to flip it?
why do you want to flip it?
Till you tag the lower link with a rock and put all of the force at one point.
If you build it strong it won't matter.
- Thread starter
- #13
The question I was answering by wanting to flip them was “Can clearance be gained while only using straight tubes?”
Could just run two straight pieces, like the grey. Assume that where the two meet there is a bushing. Or, you can make the purple shape (again with an assumed bushing) to gain some clearance. Two ways of getting that shape. Bend the lower arm to give the curve and attach a short tube on top. Or, make the top tube straight and make the bottom tube the short one – No tube bending. I know someone with 1.75” dies, I don’t know anyone with 2” dies, especially ones that will bend .25” or .375” wall.
The other question will end up being – is there enough clearance to the frame to have the top link flat. Only laying under the truck with tube in hand will tell that. Guess if one wanted the clearance in the rear, you could put the mounts on the inside of the frame rail – but don’t know if you could still keep straight tubes that way or not. It’s a thought though.
- Thread starter
- #15
If there is room for the top link to be flat, you can see how it’d gain some clearance on this guy’s rear Y-link. I hear he's beat them all to hell.
- Thread starter
- #16
they do o.k.
https://forum.ih8mud.com/80-series-tech/294260-jodo-97-lx450-coilover-project-6.html#post4643102
This is for the front of a 6,000 lb 80 series that drives nice down the road that still needs to drive nice down the road. It's already got radius arms, just because of the radius arm design they bind alot - alot more than Y-links. There are plenty of threads in the 80's section about how bad radius arms are, about how good they are, about how good 3-links are, how bad and unsafe 3-links are. Lots of opinions, very few with experience - Dusty's an exception. If I asked the question in that section, I'd get all kids of arguments about why I should or shouldn't keep radius arms. I didn't want that arguement, just info on how to build them.
I'm not looking for huge articulation gains, just a little, and a little moving the axle forward to get the tires out of the fender wells.
- Thread starter
- #18
You need to hang around the 80's guys more. Creeper is looking into something new for his front cause he's bent his front radius arms. I'm on my second set of bent rear links - bent rear links on 80's is common from hitting them.
That is not much flex really.
A Y-link is a radius arm. There is essentially no difference.
You guys need to build your links stronger or out of a different material. Bending the links is not the answer to existing failure of the links.
Mace, I agree with what you are saying. However, in this situation he is not looking for all out flex. I agree with your argument but he is not building a rock buggy. Just food for thought: He didn't post this in 80 tech because he didn't want to hear people trying to convince him to look at a different suspension design. You are doing the same thing, just the other direction. 
